It is equivalent, because in this case, it is literally promoting transphobia. One of the worlds leading transphobes will directly benefit from the profits this show makes, and will directly turn those profits against dismantling the rights of trans folk.

adverb: literally in a literal manner or sense; exactly.

It literallyis not. I posted the definition in case you needed it. Purchasing or consuming a product is not exactly the same as promoting transphobia.

By your logic every person in the United States who pays any kind of taxes that go to the federal government is promoting transphobia. If you've ever shopped at a store that employs a transphobe, you're promoting transphobia. If you've ever watched a movie or tv show that has a transphobic actor in it, you're promoting transphobia. Doesn't matter if you know it because, as you put it, they directly benefit from your money.

If you know she will hurt trans people with the money she makes, and you do things that continue to make her money (which includes just advocating for continued consumption of her work), it is black and white, and the context and intent are quite visible.

The only part of this that's true is "advocating for continued consumption of her work" and even that's a stretch because a person could have any number of reasons. Also, simply expressing interest in something is not advocating for it, it's sharing an opinion or preference.

By itself, it doesn't mean someone is transphobic. But it does mean that at the very least, personal nostalgia is more important to that person than the harm their actions cause. And that is plenty of intent and context.

It doesn't mean that, that's what you're assuming because that's what it means to you.

You do not make the rules for other people.

I am so tired of this "fall in line or else" attitude everyone seems to have.

You want to preface it with "in my opinion" you go right ahead and we'll have to agree to disagree but it is by definition and factually not literally promoting transphobia.

No, it indirectly funds her through a convoluted system of ownership and IP law.

The problem isn't people consuming media. The problem is the system that funnels wealth into the pockets of bigots.

You get that the only person who controls what JK Rowling does is her, right?

You don't have to like that someone may choose to continue to consume Harry Potter but trying to claim they are directly promoting transphobia unless the context and/or the intent is there.

Someone with a track record of transphobic behavior, sure. Someone who is posting about it in spaces intended for trans people, especially if that space has already clearly communicated their stance on it, maybe.

Context and intent matter.